Thursday, December 3, 2015

An Open Letter to White People who Want to Support Black Lives Matter

Maybe you have always known.  Maybe the events of the last two years have awakened you.  Whatever your story - however your eyes have been opened - you have come to the realization that America is a racist society in which black people are dehumanized, degraded, and discriminated against; in which they face significant obstacles in their pursuit of opportunities and experiences that are widely and warmly offered to white people; in which black people are suspended and expelled at disproportionate rates, have profoundly different interactions with the justice system, and are far more likely to be murdered by police officers than white people.  You find that unacceptable, and as a matter of conscience, you want to help.

About that.

The Donate and Feel Great Model of Helping

For many of us, the act of helping means not only doing good, but also feeling good about what you're doing.  You make a $20 donation to support cancer research; you get a nice, warm, fuzzy thank you note from the American Cancer Society.  You go on with your day with a little bit a of a smile on your face, because you know, you're a pretty good person. 

As a group, white people are used to warm, fuzzy moments like this.  We're used being centered; having value and merit ascribed to our opinions and our actions; having priority granted to our feelings.  When the American Cancer Society sends that note, they don't challenge you; they validate you.  They tell you that YOU make a difference (really? with $20? if you say so!). 

If you really want to help the movement, let go of that model.  Donate money, of course, but leave the model behind. You need to embrace a whole different mindset, with different behaviors, as I will illustrate by way of analogy.

The Headache Model of Helping

Suppose a person you love has an agonizing headache. You can see the hurt and suffering on their face, and you want to drop everything to help. You ask questions like, "Do you want to lie down?  Do you want an aspirin?  Should I turn that music off?  Should I shut the window?  Do you want me to rub your shoulders?  What can I do?"  

Suppose that as you're trying to help, however, you go too far.  You're fussing, and they just want to sleep or have silence. They snap at you. "Just leave me alone!  Fuck off!"

Do you get mad? Nope. You get it. This is not about you. This is about them. You are peripheral.  When asked to leave the room, you leave the room.

This analogy isn't perfect - racism and state violence are very obviously not equivalent to a headache - but this model of helping is one to remember and emulate.  First, within this model, you instinctively avoid all kinds of obnoxious behaviors:
  • You do not challenge the reality of the headache, nor do you demand details about the quality of pain
  • You do not plop down on the other end of the couch and start telling stories about that one time when you had a headache
  • You do not lecture the person for snapping at you or being discourteous
  • You do not log onto Facebook and post, "I just got Kris an aspirin and turned out the light.  Feeling good!"  In other words, you don't consider your helping actions anything to be proud of.  You know they're both ordinary and expected.  If you did any less, you'd be, at best, a pretty insensitive asshole.
In addition to avoiding bad behaviors, under this model you demonstrate all kinds of positive behaviors, again very instinctively:
  • You center the person who needs help, not yourself. 
  • You check to see exactly what help is needed and desired, and you both listen to and respect the answers you are given. 
  • You are willing to be actively involved to make sure the other person gets what they need.
  • Despite the urge to do something, you respect that sometimes, you can't do anything, and indeed, it would be best if you left the room.

Applying the Model

As you start taking your first steps, you are going to want to keep this model in your head, because those wonderful behaviors you practice instinctively under the right set of conditions will not be instinctive to you in the weeks and months ahead.  Yes, you'll know you should be listening instead of talking, and yes, sure, you'll try not to center yourself.  But. In your enthusiasm, you will have the urge - the overwhelming need, even - to share your opinions, insert yourself into conversations taking place among black people, talk about your own experiences, maybe get a little round of applause for being an enlightened white person. Let me be the first to tell you those impulses are wrong.  That's plopping down on the end of the couch and rambling when that person you love has a headache.  Stop.  Don't make extra problems.

Now that I've said that, here's the other thing you need to know: You WILL make extra problems.  You WILL fuck up.  Heaven knows I have, and I will again.  When you do, someone may snap at you, tell you to shut up, lecture you about how white people always think everyone needs to know their opinions.  You will feel embarrassed and stupid, and you might even want to gather up your toys and go home.  Because how dare somebody snap at you!  You are taking time out of your life to help, and this is the thanks you get?!

Here's the honest truth: The only reason you're mad is that you're still centering yourself.  You are making this about you when it's not remotely about you.  You would never have that angry reaction to a person you love who is suffering from an agonizing headache.  You would never say, "Well, if that's how you talk to me when I'm trying to help you, I AM LEAVING FOREVER."

White privilege manifests in a lot of ways and means a lot of things, but at the end of the day, that right there is white privilege: You can, in fact, walk away. You have the choice not to think about race, racism, white supremacy, or state violence for the rest of the day, or if you're seriously determined (and seriously morally bankrupt), forever.  That doesn't mean making the decision to think about it makes you special or great.  It means you're a more or less decent human being, which is exactly what you should be.

Other Ways to Help

I've suggested both directly and by analogy that sometimes the most helpful things you can do are negative actions: closing your mouth, keeping your stories to yourself, leaving the room when asked.  There are, of course, positive things you can do, too.

  1. Broaden your mind.  Listen to podcasts like This Week in Blackness Prime (Elon James White, Imani Gandy,  Aaron Rand Freeman), Intersection with Jamil Smith (The New Republic), and Our National Conversation about Conversations about Race (Baratunde Thurston, Raquel Cepeda, Tanner Colby). Seek out anti-racist voices on social media.  Read articles and books, of which there are obviously loads. Right now I'm reading Two Nations: Black & White, Separate, Hostile, Unequal by Andrew Hacker.  Next I'm reading Just Mercy by Bryan Stevenson.
  2. When you encounter new terms and concepts, educate yourself.  That doesn't mean asking a black person to stop doing movement work in order to educate you (or to stop having a fun, relaxing conversation, either).  That means using Google.  That means researching for yourself. 
  3. Embrace crisis.  Growth is often precipitated by crisis. When you fuck up, take deep breaths.  Remind yourself as many times as you need to that this is not about your embarrassment or your hurt feelings. Ask yourself what you can learn from your mistake and how you can do better as a result of it.  Do that.
  4. Challenge white people who aren't woke. This is important work, but I list it fourth for a reason. Listen and learn first. That's not to say that you should let racism go unchecked, but that you want to be smart in your approach.  Also, I hope this is an unnecessary reminder, but don't speak "for" black people or talk over black voices.  You're nobody's savior, and nobody's spokesperson. 
Finally, you don't need me to tell you that you have political power.  Use it.

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Yes, Black Lives Matter

This morning, I woke up to news that the mural of Sandra Bland in Ottawa had been defaced with the words ALL LIVES MATTER.   As I attempted - fruitlessly - to get my head around that, I poked about online and learned that members of BlakCollectiv painted the same wall with the words Black Lives Matter last week, which is something like a context, I suppose.  Even so, it's difficult to imagine the calculus of human worth posited by those words, painted over that mural.

Mural Artists:  Sandra Bland matters.

Vandals: No, she doesn't, because EVERYONE does.

Um. 


I am inclined to start by pointing out that there is not a finite quantity of "mattering" in our country.  Congress has not formally determined that 2,000,000 Americans may matter at any given time, leaving us to battle for the glory and honor of having basic human worth.  In truth, we can all matter at the same time, no lines, no waiting, and no one erased in the process.  We should all matter that way.

And we don't.

Let's take the example of Michael Brown.  Michael Brown was shot and left in the street for four hours.  When news broke that he had stolen cigars prior to his death, many people on the right said (I'll paraphrase), "This is who you want to glorify?  A thief?  A thug?"  Somehow, the insistence that people who are black should not be shot and left in the street, that police should not withhold information, that's veritable hagiography.  

Michael Brown was a human being of worth and value and beauty, but to say that became a radical, incendiary act.  He was not given the standard pass for (white) teenagers, whose parents were advised in a Family Circle article about teen shoplifting that shoplifting is a big deal, although of course, it "isn't life or death." In fact, Mike Brown was not even given the standard treatment of being called a teenager (let alone a child) because he was a big guy.  As Linda Chavez said in an interview on Fox: "We're talking about an 18-year-old man who is six foot four and weighs almost three hundred pounds." 

Rumors began to fly, mostly via email forwards, that Michael Brown had a lengthy rap sheet, that he had been charged with "Burglary, Armed criminal action, Assault with the intent to do great bodily harm, and again Armed criminal action."  As one email put it, "let us be clear, Michael Brown was a n*****; a sorry assed, criminal, hoodlum, n*****."

Ah.  Now we get to the heart of racism:  Don't worry about Michael Brown, because he wasn't a person.  Michael Brown was a n****** whose life had no value.

Except wait.

If All Lives Matter, then ALL lives have value, right?  There can be no such thing as a life without meaning, unless of course All Lives don't matter equally, and that is part of the point.

If All Lives matter equally, someone needs to alert the All the Police, because some officers seem to think that All Lives means Some Lives, or maybe even All Lives means White Lives.  When the Department of Justice investigated the Ferguson PD, they found that "[n]early 90% of documented police violence was used against African Americans," while 100% of canine attacks were directed against blacks.  The report also explains: "FPD appears to bring certain offenses almost exclusively against African Americans. For example, from 2011 to 2013, African Americans accounted for 95% of Manner of Walking in Roadway charges" (which sometimes just means being in the road) "and 94% of all Failure to Comply charges," casually known as contempt of cop charges.  Keep in mind, too, that officers were found to be detaining people without reasonable suspicion, and then arresting them without probable cause, using these charges (sometimes incorrectly and unlawfully) as justification after the fact.

Of course, no one can make a fuss about any of that because of #blackviolence.  No really, that's a hashtag on Twitter, and it refers to violence committed by black folks.  (I'm not going to link to it, but you can look it up if you are feeling strong.)  The idea behind this hashtag seems to be that since black people commit more acts of violence against other black people than police do, it is hypocritical to be upset about police violence.  I saw someone on Facebook arguing that outrage about police treatment of black people is for this very reason "phony."  

Forget that being killed by a cop, who is paid to serve and protect, is entirely different than being killed by a civilian, who is not.  Forget that civilians are not intended to risk incarceration, bodily injury, or death from cops who don't like the way they are sitting in their car or walking down the street.  Forget logic and basic sense, because human beings are apparently ONLY allowed to protest the single greatest threat to their lives, and no other.   By that reasoning, the Black Lives Matter movement should vent all their anger at cardiovascular disease.  

In reality, the problem here isn't black anger; it's white anger.  Here's the low down on Sandra Bland from a blog called ClashDaily:
Let me just say, had Sandra Bland been white and committed suicide inside of a Waller County jail cell, this would have been a non-issue or just a possible blip on our news. But since only black lives matter all Hell has been unleashed on the Hispanic arresting officer, the Waller county Sheriff and his whole department … and God knows every white person in the great state of Texas is also responsible (ellipsis in original) 
Amen. Hear hear.  I hope every white person in the great state of Texas will shortly be charged with the crime of . . . with the crime of . . . oh what does it matter.  I'm sure they were in the street, not complying.

The statement that Black Lives Matter doesn't mean Black Lives Matter More.  It means that Black Lives Matter Just as Much as Anyone Else's, and Everyone Else's.  It means that All Black Lives Matter, Not Just the Lives of Black Heterosexual Men.  That assertion is not anything like a cry for superiority, or special rights, or any of that nonsense.  It's a statement about the value of black life in a society that lessens, diminishes, and denies that value, with deadly costs.  In 2014, researchers trying to understand racial disparities in death penalty sentencing showed participants pictures of black faces and white faces, along with sets of value words, meaning words that cast someone in a positive or negative light.  What they found was that "participants consistently were faster to associate Black with lack of worth and White with worth."  And it sure is easier to sentence someone to die when that person doesn't really matter anyway.  Sorry assed, criminal, hoodlum, n*****.

When white folks have interactions with police that aren't above board, they get upset about it.  When white people's rights are trampled on, white people holler.  If white people found out that juries were more likely to sentence white criminals to death, white people would scream to the heavens.  And why shouldn't they? 

Why shouldn't anyone?

On its face, and divorced from its context, All Lives Matter seems like a harmless enough thing to say, but in context - and we are pretty much bursting with context, here - All Lives Matter is not only a demand for silence, but a scolding for speaking out in the first place.

Black Lives Matter.  No one should ever suggest otherwise.

Sunday, June 28, 2015

Cruel to Be Kind? - A Non-Christian Response to Certain Christian Comments about Gay Marriage


[L]ove instructs the little child not to play in the street. Love teaches the sixteen year old to follow the rules of the road. Love advises the college student to abstain from drunkenness. And yes, love warns the homosexual of the danger that he or she is in. Yet, sometimes, as the apostle Paul said, 'the more abundantly I love you, the less I am loved.' All good parents have experienced this as well as many pastors and counselors.
Okay, so a loving Christian teaches, instructs, advises, and warns gay people of their sins, even at the risk of rejection and unpopularity.  Let's hold that thought for just a moment and move to another blogger, Jonathan Parnell, who explained back in April of 2014 "Why Homosexuality Is Not Like Other Sins."  Citing 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10, Parnell says that although homosexuality is named along with idolatry, adultery, immorality, thievery, drunkenness, greed, reviling, and swindling, homosexuality alone "is celebrated by our larger society with pioneering excitement. It’s seen as a good thing, as the new hallmark of progress."  As far as he can tell, "none of those sins is applauded [as] aggressively" as homosexuality.

"[I]t is an oversimplification," Parnell emphasizes, "to say that Christians — or conservative evangelicals — are simply against homosexuality":
We are against any sin that restrains people from everlasting joy in God, and homosexual practice just gets all the press because, at this cultural moment, it’s the main sin that is so freshly endorsed in our context by the powers that be. Let’s hope that if there’s some new cultural agenda promoting thievery — one that says it’s now our right to take whatever we want from others by whatever means — that Christians will speak out against it. The issue is sin. That’s what we’re against. 
Both bloggers' words bring up several points that those of us on the left find frustrating and problematic.  First, let's talk about love.
  • Many of us on the left - if not most, if not all - operate from a position of love.  We're not admired for that love, incidentally; we're mocked for it, as "bleeding hearts," apparently for the central reason that we do not invoke Jesus as our exemplar.  And because we do not reference Jesus, our love is laughable. Our love is obnoxious.  Our love is insincere, self-serving, devoid of meaning.
  • As much as I still maintain that I love my fellow human beings, I do not (as Parnell maintains) celebrate homosexuality.  As it so happens, I do not celebrate bisexuality, heterosexuality, pansexuality, or asexuality.  What I celebrate are people - their rights, their dignity, their worthiness, and their equality, all of which I hold as valid and incontestable.  Sexuality simply doesn't enter into it for me.  When our forefathers were holding truths to be self-evident, sexuality didn't enter into it for them, either.  Sexuality isn't a deal breaker.  It isn't even at the table for discussion.
  • Candidly, I am unaware that anyone celebrates homosexuality as "the new hallmark of progress," as Parnell maintains.  That said, I do want progress for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and trans individuals.  When I, as a liberal, advocate for their rights, that is my act of love.  I recognize the humanity and dignity of fellow Americans, who have been denied civil rights on the basis of religious views about sexuality.  They deserve progress, because no one should be subject to the dictates of religions in which they may not believe.
Now we come to the second point.  There is much said in both of these blogs about correction as an act of Christian love.  We bear the good news that you are a sinner before God, who loves you!  As Seewald reveals in his examples, however, there is an inherent authority presumed in these corrections.  "[L]ove instructs the little child not to play in the street," he says.  "Love teaches the sixteen year old to follow the rules of the road. Love advises the college student to abstain from drunkenness."  In all of these cases, the gay, autonomous grown up is paralleled with a child.  Not even teenagers like to be treated like children.  Why should autonomous, independent adults?  How can a Christian - even in complete faithfulness and sincerity of devotion - expect to conduct such a conversation?

Seewald does allow that this sort of conversation may lead to diminishing popularity.  "All good parents have experienced this," he says, "as well as many pastors and counselors."  The problem is that parents are recognized authorities to children, while pastors are recognized by their flocks.  What happens when Christians, even in a spirit of love, invoke a spiritual authority that a gay person may not recognize or worship?  After all, a Christian would surely not respond to correction by a Muslim.  It seems a very tricky business, this correcting.

We'll come back to that issue by way of our third point, which is this: Why are Christians not urged, as an act of love, to correct all sinners?  Perhaps part of the problem is that such correction might appear like this:


That is a correction that professes love, yet it is not loving.  It is not kind.  It is not even polite. 

Let's revisit that list of sins Parnell mentioned from Corinthians, which includes idolatry, adultery, immorality, thievery, drunkenness, greed, reviling, and swindling.  Of all these sins, Parnell says, homosexuality alone is celebrated, which is why Christians must give it a disproportionate amount of attention.  The problem with this claim is that it skips over things taking place at every level, all of the time, yet not "celebrated" by the left.  Here are just a few examples.
  • There's the greed of Wall Street, which resulted in illogical and deliberately misleading classifications of mortgages for personal financial gain.  Once the inevitable bubble burst, the entire world economy went reeling. The US sank into recession. People lost jobs, homes, stability.  Yet Wall Street carries on, essentially unpunished.  (And Occupy Wall Street was roundly mocked.)
  • Income inequity is at the greatest it's been in roughly a hundred years.  Workers' wages have stagnated and even declined, while executive wages have skyrocketed.  Workers are laid off to boost profits for stockholders.  Jobs are sent overseas simply to boost profits.  "That's just good business," some might say.  But that would be to suggest that no one ran a good business prior to the 1980s.  Let's call this obsession with profit at any cost by its right name: It is greed.  It is the desire for money.  I'm sure I don't need to cite all of the bible verses on that subject.
  • Drunkenness, meanwhile, is the third-leading cause of preventable death in the United States.  In 2013, it contributed to more than 30% of driving fatalities.  More than 10% of our children live with a parent who has alcohol dependency problems.  Globally, the misuse of alcohol is the #1 risk factor for death and disability among people ages 15-49.  Substance abuse - that is, abuse of alcohol or drugs - was implicated in 78% of violent crimes in the US in 2010.  (All statistics are from the National Institute of Health except the violent crimes statistic.) 
  • More than half of married adults who engage in adultery seek a divorce
There is simply no logic by which homosexuality can be "worse" than these issues, more damaging to the country than these issues, or more certain to doom us all.  Yet one does not see loving Christians going into bars to dissuade patrons from drinking.  One does not see loving Christians entering businesses to discuss fair pay or ethical business practices.

What one does see are levels of histrionics over Obergefell v. Hodges that are almost not to be believed.  Bryan Fischer tweeted, ""From a moral standpoint, 6/26 is now our 9/11."  Why should the civil rights of gays and lesbians be this profoundly upsetting?   Let's go back to where we started.  Chief Justice Moore said:  "We are to love our fellow man and if we love our fellow man what are we do but tell them when there is sin, because sin is something you are supposed to hate.  When they create it as a national right, a fundamental right, what are we to do?"

Apparently, Moore's expectation was that secular law must do the spiritual double duty of reproving gay people and denying them civil rights because "there is sin."  Apparently, secular law was meant to solve the problem of what happens when people don't respect the authority of the Christian god: Those people still have to follow the law of the land.  But that is not how it works.  You don't get to have civil rights if and only if someone's god reportedly approves of you.  You get to have civil rights because you are a human being.

I find on the internet that "Christian persecution is any hostility experienced from the world as a result of one's identification as a Christian."  I have seen many individual Christians howling at the notion that they are persecuting gays - and naturally, there are many, many Christians who aren't, and don't, and never would.  Yet it is hard not to see hostility in all of this supposed "love," and in the singling out of homosexuality amongst all other sins. It is hard to feel Christ's love in this Christian correction. And when winning one's civil rights is compared to terrorists attacking and slaughtering innocents, well, that's just hard to see.

Thursday, May 7, 2015

The Cost of Closing Clinics

I will start this piece by telling you where it ends: In 2015, in Scott County, Indiana, where we have a "public health problem" (that's a euphemism for HIV outbreak) that has been tied to the closure of a Planned Parenthood clinic. According to an Indiana Business Journal article, the Scottsburg clinic was one of five that closed its doors in the state of Indiana back in 2009, the same year "the not-for-profit Indiana Family Health Council [took] over administering $2 million in grants, some of which previously went to Planned Parenthood."

Now that we know the end, let's go back to the beginning.  Why did the State of Indiana take money away from Planned Parenthood?  Technically, I don't know, in the sense that I can't find a document - a press release, an excerpt of a speech -  that spells it out.  I think it's fairly safe to guess, however, that we can sum up the decision in two words: Abortion services. 

Abortion, after all, was the target of conservative Indiana politicians, who made Indiana the first state to defund Planned Parenthood back in 2011.  When (then) Governor Mitch Daniels signed on the dotted line in May of that year, he said, "Any organization affected by this provision can resume receiving taxpayer dollars immediately by ceasing or separating its operations that perform abortions."

Wait, you're thinking.  Taxpayer dollars and abortions go together like . . . like . . . Quarter Pounders and vegans, don't they?  Because something something something Hyde Amendment?  Yup, you're right.  And if there's something routinely put in place at the federal level (you must suspect), there's probably something in place at the state level.  Hey, right again!  But!  Many politicians on the right claim that giving any taxpayer money to Planned Parenthood - even for, say, HIV testing, prenatal care, contraception counseling, or a breast exam - funds abortion, because Planned Parenthood cannot keep all the monies apart, no matter what its claims to the contrary.  As quoted in Nuvo back in 2011, Indiana State Representative Matt Ubelhor said, "If we're buying the roof over [Planned Parenthood's] head or their paper clips, we're still subsidizing abortion."

Fun side note:  The code word you hear for this in political debates is "fungible."  It's a cool word, right?  Say it in your head.  FUN-juh-bull.  They use this word to mean that all the money is interchangeabull and interchanged.  Oh, sorry, did I say bull again?  That was phonetic.

In any case, the courts ruled that the State of Indiana could not in fact cut off Medicaid dollars to Planned Parenthood, because

Although Indiana has broad authority to exclude unqualified providers from its Medicaid program, the State does not have plenary authority to exclude a class of providers for any reason—more particularly, for a reason unrelated to provider qualifications. In this context, 'qualified' means fit to provide the necessary medical services—that is, capable of performing the needed medical services in a professionally competent, safe, legal, and ethical manner. The defunding law excludes Planned Parenthood from Medicaid for a reason unrelated to its fitness to provide medical services, violating its patients' statutory right to obtain medical care from the qualified provider of their choice (emphasis mine)
After two years, Indiana gave up.  They lost in court, so they abandoned the hope of defunding Planned Parenthood, but their defeat has not stopped other states from pulling the same move.  Indeed, Texas went so far as to refuse to fund Planned Parenthood even after the Obama administration cut off their Medicaid funding for denying poor women access to the qualified provider of their choice.  And would you like to guess who Ted Cruz blamed for that?  Hint: It's Obama.  And I don't mean Michelle.

Back in 2013, Rick Santorum said, "Too many in the GOP want to ignore the millions of innocent lives that have been extinguished by this vile organization. Defunding Planned Parenthood is a winning issue. The polls prove it."  So even if you don't think Planned Parenthood is a "vile organization," this is a "winning issue" for a Republican.  Who could resist?

Well, now we come back to Scott County, Indiana, where the people presently infected with HIV might wonder exactly who is "winning" when Planned Parenthood clinics are closed down.  According to this excellent article by Leigh Cowart, the health department in Scott County didn't offer HIV testing until the problem started to draw attention.  It's also the case, as asserted by Cowart and backed up here, that "[n]o agency receiving state funds may distribute condoms." You know who did both of those things back in the day?  Planned Parenthood.  Know what else?  Scott County didn't exactly need fewer healthcare options, since their premature death rate is roughly double the Indiana average.  You can use that link to see just how much Scott County needed help and support, instead of what they got. 

Of course, I'm sure someone would be happy to point out that Hoosiers can get healthcare through the Indiana Family Health Council, which is true, even though they can't offer any help in Scott County, and even though I am mildly concerned to find "withdrawal" listed as a means of birth control on their web site.



Since pulling out constitutes birth control, however, it's a little bizarre to learn on the same site that "a girl can get pregnant even if a boy doesn’t ejaculate or 'cum' inside her."

That whole contradiction is probably not a big deal, because teenagers never go on the web to get information, right?  And even if they do, adolescent Hoosiers surely have a solid backing in sex education that will help them see the error here.  As summarized by "sex, etc."


HIV/AIDS and Other STDs Education
  • Indiana state law requires STDs and HIV/AIDS education. Local school boards decide which subjects this education must cover and the grade level in which topics are introduced.
  • Abstinence must be covered and stressed as the only completely effective protection against unplanned pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections, and HIV/AIDS when transmitted sexually.
  • Teaching about contraceptives, such as condoms, the Pill, or the Patch, is not required.

Add all of this up, and I'm pretty sure everything is just fine.

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Gene Schaerr's Ungenial Amicus Brief: A Breakdown

On April 28, 2015, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the constitutionality of state-level bans on gay marriage. There is no handy case caption for this day - no "Roe v. Wade" or "Brown v. Board of Education" - because back in January, the Court agreed to hear four separate cases, but only by consolidating them. The Court also limited their consideration to two questions:
  1. Does the Constitution require the states to let gay couples get married? (That's known as "the marriage question.")
  2. If a gay couple was legally wed in one state, does the Constitution require other states to recognize that marriage? (That's known as "the recognition question.")
To make things extra interesting, not all of the states want to be heard on both questions.  As Lyle Denniston says on the SCOTUSblog, "Kentucky is defending [i.e. seeking to uphold] both a ban on same-sex marriages and a separate ban on the official recognition of existing same-sex marriages.  Michigan is defending only a marriage ban, and Ohio and Tennessee are supporting only recognition bans."

Got all that?

For reporters and court watchers, there is a metric ton of potential reading material related to this four-for-one, including not only the briefs from the petitioners and the defending states, but also the   amicus briefs, which are filed by people or entities who are not parties to the suits but who feel they have information to share with the Court.  The Columbia Law School Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic filed such a brief, for example, as did the President of the House of Deputies of the Episcopal Church.  PFLAG filed a brief, and so did 226 mayors from across the country.  Whole entire states have weighed in, from Virginia to Hawaii.  None of these briefs, however, has generated the press coverage received by Gene Schaerr, who made the claim in his amicus brief that forcing states to permit same-sex marriages would lead to 900,000 abortions.  Yes, he counted.

On the surface, this claim seemed so wildly bizarre that I could easily dismiss the brief without reading it, but in a weird way, the bizarreness of it is exactly what made me need to read the brief in full.  And what I found there so interested me that I wanted to share it with you. 

First, for all the liberal scoffers who laugh at the idea that a same-sex marriage can hurt an opposite-sex marriage, Schaerr wants you to know you're not getting it:
Any ruling compelling states to redefine marriage in genderless terms will adversely alter the whole institution of marriage.  That is not because same-sex marriages will directly “harm” existing man-woman marriages. It is because the forced redefinition will undermine important social norms — like the value of biological connections between parents and children — that arise from the man-woman understanding. (6)
Okay, so norms.  Schaerr really likes norms.  He lists six that are valuable to society - and only applicable to heterosexual couples, obviously.  He makes a point of that.
  1. The "biological bonding norm" (kids have the right to be raised by their biological moms and dads, and for that matter, to be financed by them, which is the "maintenance norm" subset of the biological bonding norm)
  2. The "gender-diversity norm" (kids have the right to be raised by A mom and a dad, even if not their own mom and dad)
  3. The "postponement norm" (people should wait to make babies until they're in meaningful, committed relationships)
  4. The "procreation norm" (having and raising kids is socially valuable)
  5. The "exclusivity norm" (people should make babies with one partner only)
  6. The "child-centricity norm" (children first, you heathens - and that's the grandaddy norm)
All of these norms make society strong.  Damage these norms, and you damage society.

Now, you might be thinking "Wait, I'm adopted.  Are you saying I hurt society?"  Or "Wait, I'm a single mom!  Are you saying I hurt society?" Or "Wait, I'm married with no interest in having children!  Are you saying I hurt society?"  All of you can file into that line over there and wait for Schaerr to get to you.  I hope you brought a tasty snack, though.  And the Lord of the Rings trilogy.  He might not get to you for awhile.

What he'll definitely get to is the same line we've been hearing for years now about children who are not raised by both of their biological parents.  To quote the CDC:
Adverse outcomes accrue to children of divorce and children raised in single-parent families. Although not all single-parent families are the result of divorce and not all divorced mothers remain single, virtually all children of divorce spend some time in a single-parent household until the mother remarries.  Even when the mother does remarry, studies suggest that children in stepfamilies have similar risks of adverse outcomes as children in single-parent families: both groups of children do worse than children living with two biological parents in terms of academic achievement, depression, and behavior problems such as drug and alcohol abuse, premarital sexual intercourse, and being arrested.
I can't argue with the CDC.  Study after study (after study, plus more studies) find a risk of "adverse outcomes" awaiting the children of single mothers.  That said, did you miss the part where two gay parents equal one not-gay parent?  I did, too.  Even if we accept the "child-centricity norm," we can't say that the children of two heterosexual people who got divorced are the best point of comparison for the children of two gay people who got married, can we?  Because if we can, I'm not sure where to go from here.

We can't even safely or confidently say that heterosexual couples who stay married will uphold the norms that Schaerr identifies.  As he writes, "opposite-sex parents who embrace the norms of child-centricity and maintenance are also less likely to engage in behaviors - such as physical or sexual child abuse, neglect, or divorce -  that not only harm their children, but typically require state assistance or intervention" (emphasis mine).  Sure.  And accountants who brush and floss are less likely to lose their teeth.  Does that mean accountants have exceptional dental hygiene?

Schearr doesn't have time for accountants and toothbrushes.  A heterosexual marriage is a righteous marriage, and since that's so, he has this bit of logic to unfurl.  Changing the law to prohibit states from banning same-sex marriage would:
undermine those norms among heterosexual men, who generally need more encouragement to marry than women.  Such changes convey that society no longer needs men to bond to women to form well-functioning families or to raise happy, well-adjusted children.
Exactly!  Well said!

Wait, what was that again?

If gay people can marry, then . . . heterosexual men . . . will . . . think no one needs them?  And therefore . . . refuse to get married?  While sulking?  In a corner?  Sensitive group, those heterosexual men.

If you think that's absurd, by the way, Schaerr has FACTS and CHARTS to persuade you.  Just look at the marriage and divorce rates in states where gay marriage is legal!  (This is his table.)


Are you shocked and horrified by the way that gay marriage has driven down the marriage rates in those states?  I'm pretty shocked myself, except for the part where marriage rates fell for years without anyone blaming gay marriage.  Data from the CDC says the national rate in the year 2000 was 8.2.  In 2005, it was 7.6.  In 2010, 6.8.  Those were some busy stealth-gays.

Of course, the marriage rate has been holding at 6.8 for a few years now, so maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe other things used to cause it, but now gay marriage causes it.  Or maybe it's accountants who don't floss.

Because see, the problem with holding two things up next to each other is that you can't make them have a causal relationship.  Gay marriage didn't cause marriage rates to decline any more than single mothers have caused their children's grades to drop (or be at risk for dropping). 

Oh, and to circle back to that abortion issue, after the gays make the heterosexual men sulk in the corner refusing to get married because of norm damage, well, abortions.  How?
The logic is simple and intuitive: Fewer opposite-sex marriages means more unmarried women, which in turn means fewer children born, more children born to unmarried mothers, and more children aborted.
There are charts for this, too, and emphatic discussion of how Vermont, Iowa, Connecticut, and Massachusetts have some of the highest abortion rates in the country, caused, no doubt, by gay marriage.  Again.

If you're thinking by this point that you can write the Yale-educated Schaerr off as a crank or a lone gunman, I'll leave you with this.  These are the people who signed the brief along with him.



Aguirre, Dr. Maria S., Professor of Economics,

The Catholic University of America



Allen, Dr. Douglas W., Professor of Economics,

Simon Fraser University



Alvare, Helen M., Professor of Law,

George Mason University



Araujo, Dr. Robert John, University Professor Emeritus,

Loyola University Chicago



Baptist, Dr. Errol C., Clinical Professor of Pediatrics,

University of Illinois



Bateman, Dr. Michael, Assistant Professor of Pediatrics,

University of Minnesota



Bauman, Dr. Michael E., Professor of Theology and Culture,

Hillsdale College



Benton, Dr. Thomas B.B., Adjunct Faculty in Pediatrics,

University of Florida College of Medicine



Bleich, Dr. J. David, Professor of Jewish Law and Ethics,

Cardozo Law School, Yeshiva University



Boone, Dr. Mark J., Assistant Professor of Philosophy,

Forman Christian College



Bouvier, Dr. Joseph, Clinical Assistant Professor of

Child Health (Pediatrics) and Emergency Medicine,

University of Arizona College of Medicine



Bradford, Dr. Kay, Associate Professor of Family, Consumer & Human Development,

Utah State University



Bradford, Dr. Nathan F., Associate Professor of Family

Medicine, AnMed Health Oglesby Center



Brakman, Dr. Sarah-Vaughan, Associate Professor of Philsophy,

Villanova University



Busby, Dr. Dean, Professor of Family Life,

Brigham Young University



Carlson, Jr., Dr. Alfred J., Associate Faculty in Pediatrics,

University of Pennsylvania Medical School



Cavadini, Dr. John, Professor of Theology,

University of Notre Dame



Christensen, Dr. Bryce, Associate Professor of English,

Southern Utah University



Colosi, Dr. Peter J., Associate Professor of Moral Theology,

Charles Borromeo Seminary



Corral, Dr. Hernan, Professor of Private Law,

University of the Andes (Santiago, Chile)



Crosby, Dr. John F., Professor of Philosophy,

Franciscan University of Steubenville



De Jesus, Ligia M., Associate Professor of Law,

Ave Maria School of Law



Deneen, Dr. Patrick J., Associate Professor of Political Science,

University of Notre Dame



Dennis, Dr. Steven A., Professor of Human Development,

Brigham Young University-Idaho



DeWolf, David K., Professor of Law,

Gonzaga University



Duncan, Dwight, Professor of Law,

University of Massachusetts



Esolen, Dr. Anthony M., Professor of English,

Providence College



Farnsworth, Dr. Richard Y., Adjunct Associate Professor of Pediatrics,

University of Utah School of Medicine



Field, Dr. Scott, Adjunct Faculty in Pediatrics,

University of Alabama-Huntsville



Fields, Dr. Stephen M., Associate Professor of Theology,

Georgetown University



Fitzgibbons, Dr. Richard, Director,

Institute for Marital Healing



Foley, Dr. Michael P., Associate Professor of Patristics,

Baylor University



Gombosi, Dr. Russell, Adjunct Professor of Pediatrics,

Commonwealth Medical University (Scranton, PA)



Grabowski, Dr. John, Associate Professor of Moral Theology & Ethics,

The Catholic University of America



Hafen, Bruce C., Emeritus Dean and Professor of Law,

Brigham Young University



Hancock, Dr. Ralph, Professor of Political Science,

Brigham Young University



Hartle, Dr. Ann, Professor of Philosophy,

Emory University



Hawkins, Dr. Alan J., Professor of Family Life,

Brigham Young University



Healy, Dr. Nicholas J., Assistant Professor of Philosophy,

Pontifical John Paul II Institute on Marriage and Family

at The Catholic University of America



Hendershott, Dr. Anne, Professor of Psychology, Sociology & Social Work,

Franciscan University of Steubenville



Henry, Dr. Douglas, Associate Professor of Philosophy,

Baylor University



Hill, Dr. E. Jeffrey, Professor of Family Life, Brigham Young University



Hoffman, Dr. Robert P., Professor of Pediatrics,

The Ohio State University



Holland, Dr. Matthew S., University President and Professor of Political Science,

Utah Valley University



Jacob, Bradley P., Associate Professor of Law,

Regent University



Jacobs, Dr. Nathan A., Visiting Lecturer in Philosophy,

University of Kentucky



James, Dr. Spencer, Assistant Professor of Family Life,

Brigham Young University



Jeynes, Dr. William, Professor of Education,

California State University at Long Beach



Johnson, Dr. Byron R., Distinguished Professor of the Social Sciences,

Baylor University



Jones, Dr. Woodson S., Adjunct Professor of Pediatrics,

University of Texas Health Science Center



Kaleida, Dr. Phillips H., Formerly Professor of Pediatrics (Retired 2014),

University of Pittsburgh



Kampowski, Dr. Stephan, Professor of Philosophical Anthropology,

Pontifical John Paul II Institute on Marriage and Family at The

Catholic University of America



Keen, Dr. Mary, Clinical Associate Professor,

Loyola University Medical School



Keys, Dr. Mary M., Associate Professor of Political Science,

University of Notre Dame



Knapp, Dr. Stan J., Associate Professor of Sociology,

Brigham Young University



Koterski, Dr. Joseph W., Associate Professor of Philosophy,

Fordham University



Krason, Dr. Stephen, Professor of Political Science and Legal Studies,

Franciscan University of Steubenville



Kries, Dr. Douglas, Professor of Philosophy,

Gonzaga University



Lacy, Dr. Mark D., Associate Professor of Medicine,

Texas Tech University



Lafferriere, Dr. Jorge Nicolas, Professor of Civil Law,

Pontificia Universidad Catolica Argentina



Laughlin, Gregory K., Associate Professor of Law, Cumberland School of Law,

Samford University



Lindevaldsen, Rena M., Professor of Family Law,  

Liberty University School of Law



Lim, Dr. Paul, Adjunct Professor of Surgery,

University of Minnesota Medical School (Duluth)



Liu, Dr. Paul, Clinical Assistant Professor of Pediatrrics,

University of Arizona



Mansfield, Dr. Richard, Clinical Associate Professor of Pediatrics,

Georgia Health Science University; Assistant Professor of Pediatrics,

Virginia  College of Osteopathic Medicine



Marcin, Raymond B., Emeritus Professor of Law,

The Catholic University of America



Martins, Joseph J., Assistant Professor of Law,

Liberty University School of Law



Matthews, Dr. Randolph, Clinical Assistant Professor of Pediatrics,

Wake Forest School of Medicine



McCarthy, Dr. Margaret, Assistant Professor of Theological Anthropology,

Pontifical John Paul II Institute at The Catholic University of America



McGehee, Dr. Frank T., Clinical Instructor in Pediatrics, University of Texas-Arlington



Mikochik, Stephen, Visiting Professor, Ave Maria School of Law; Professor Emeritus,

Temple University School of Law



Miller, Dr. Jerry A., Clinical Professor of Pediatrics, Medical College of Georgia



Morton, Dr. Charles, Clinical Professor of Pediatrics,

University of Illinois College of Medicine at Urbana-Champaign



Nathanson, Dr. Paul, Religious Studies Faculty (retired),

McGill University



Nowicki, Dr. Michael J., Professor of Pediatrics,

University of Mississippi School of Medicine



Olson, Dr. Ross, Assistant Professor of Pediatrics (retired),

University of Minnesota



Pearson, Dr. James M., Assistant Clinical Professor,

East Tennessee State University College of Medicine



Pearson, Dr. Lewis, Assistant Professor of Philosophy,

University of St. Francis



Pecknold, Dr. C. C., Associate Professor of Theology,

The Catholic University of America



Peterson, Dr. James C., Professor of Ethics,

Roanoke College



Prudlo, Dr. Donald S., Associate Professor of Ancient & Medieval History,

Jacksonville State University



Pruss, Dr. Alexander, Professor of Philosophy,

Baylor University



Rane, Dr. Tom, Professor of Child Development,

Brigham Young University-Idaho



Schlueter, Dr. Nathan, Associate Professor of Philosophy,

Hillsdale College



Schramm, Dr. David, Associate Professor of Human Development & Family Studies,

University of Missouri



Shaw, Dr. Bill, Assistant Professor of Pediatrics,

Virginia Commonwealth University



Shelton, Dr. Jean, Associate Professor of Pediatrics,

East Virginia Medical School



Sherlock, Dr. Richard, Professor of Philosophy,

Utah State University



Silliman, Dr. Ben, Professor of Youth Development,

North Carolina State University



Smith, Dr. Christine Z., Assistant Professor of Pediatrics,

Texas Tech Paul Foster School of Medicine



Smolin, David M., Professor of Law, Cumberland Law School,

Samford University



Sodergren, Dr. Andrew, Adjunct Assistant Professor  of Psychology, Pontifical John Paul II Institute at The Catholic University of America



Somerville, Dr. Margaret, Professor of Law, Professor Faculty of Medicine,

McGill University



Storm, Dr. Joanna, Professor of Psychology,

Franciscan University of Steubenville



Tollefsen, Dr. Christopher, Professor of Philosophy,

University of South Carolina



Vitz, Dr. Paul C., Senior Scholar and Professor of Psychology,

The Institute for Psychological

Sciences; formerly Professor of Psychology,

New York University



Vizcarrondo, Dr. Felipe E., Associate Professor,

University of Miami Miller School of Medicine



Walls, Dr. Jerry, Professor of Philosophy,

Houston Baptist University



Wheless, Dr. James W., Professor and Chief of Pediatric Neurology,

University of Tennessee



Williams, Dr. Richard N., Professor of Psychology,

Brigham Young University



Wilson, Jr., Dr. Robert, Clerkship Co-Director of Pediatrics,

Florida State University College of Medicine



Yates, Dr. Ferdinand D., Professor of Clinical Pediatrics,

State University of New York at Buffalo



Yenor, Dr. Scott, Professor of Political Science,

Boise State University



Young, Dr. Katherine K., Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies,

McGill University



Zanga, Dr. Joseph, Professor of Pediatrics,

Mercer University School of Medicine;

Clinical Professor of Pediatrics, Medical College of Georgia &

Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine



Zaso, Dr. John, Clinical Assistant Professor of Pediatrics,

Hofstra NS-LIJ School of Medicine